Featured Articles

The AI Revolution’s Dystopian Future: It’s Not a Bug, It’s a Feature

The breakneck speed of technological advancement and the fever for automation have resulted in these self-contained decision-makers worming their way into all aspects of life; algorithms aren’t just the property of social media news feeds anymore, they’re also used to predict consumer habits, make investments, and even determine courtroom decisions. China, for example, is in the process of rolling out a system of ‘social credit-scoring’ in which data collection and analysis techniques will be used to give each citizen a score. … Though this system is still highly experimental, it is a testament to the widespread datafication of the modern world and the increased primacy of algorithms and machine-learning in shaping our day-to-day experiences.—Stuart Montgomery, “What’s in an Algorithm? The Problem of the Black Box

The first thing that the reader must understand is that despite the global and often diffuse nature of the expanding World Online network, the ideology/religion of Dataism and its Internet-of-(All)-Things demand central planning akin to Marxist doctrine. Granted the other features of this network are capitalist in nature, but it is unsurprising that the Chinese model is viewed as most desirable for global control, as it combines the best (from the perspective of the “elites”) aspects of each system under the cloak of humanism and various other “-isms” such as environmentalism. That the system is not concerned with the externalities it purports to consider should be clear, but trapped in dialectical reasoning as we have been conditioned to be, breaking out of these constraints is often a tall order. Consider the American conservative, a creature who seldom understands that he is, at heart, still a liberal within his post-Jacobin confines. Alas, our Pavlovian overlords provide the stimuli and condition the response.

As Ted Kaczynski wrote, “The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can’t make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values.” The point here is not to pile on conservatives but rather to highlight the inability to resist what is destroying you when you’ve already accepted all of its premises! An illustrative opinion is that of Klon Kitchen, writing for the conservative Heritage Foundation and the former Director of its Center for Technology Policy: “Google petitioners [attempting to remove a conservative from an advisory committee on ethics and artificial intelligence] seem to equate conservatism with bigotry and hate. They could not be more wrong.” This is fundamentally a liberal position. Kitchen continues, proving Kaczynski right:

Fundamentally, conservatives believe artificial intelligence can and should be used to build a country where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish. First, artificial intelligence is, and will continue to be, a critical tool for advancing U.S. security and freedom. … We agree with many of Google’s perspectives on how automation and other artificial intelligence-enabled capabilities will generate new jobs and opportunities. … Conservatives believe that artificial intelligence can open new pathways to individual and national prosperity, and we want to remove any unnecessary government barriers to these advancements. Needless regulations slow down innovation. We would gladly join Google in opposing barriers to attracting global tech talent and further expanding a technology industry that is the envy of the world.

Though Kitchen is here approaching the unshackling of artificial intelligence from a libertarian perspective, the end result would not be all that different should it arrive through government support, as a 2017 proposal from Wendy Hall (University of Southampton) and Jérôme Pesenti (Facebook AI) with the support of the Business Secretary and Culture Secretary outlines in the case of Great Britain:

We are at the threshold of an era when much of our productivity and prosperity will be derived from the systems and machines we create. We are accustomed now to technology developing fast, but that pace will increase and AI will drive much of that acceleration. The impacts on society and the economy will be profound. … Increased use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) can bring major social and economic benefits to the UK. With AI, computers can analyse and learn from information at higher accuracy and speed than humans can. AI offers massive gains in efficiency and performance to most or all industry sectors, from drug discovery to logistics. AI is software that can be integrated into existing processes, improving them, scaling them, and reducing their costs, by making or suggesting more accurate decisions through better use of information.

This will, however, require the “need to increase ease of access to data in a wider range of sectors,” and they recommend, apropos of nothing, “Greater diversity in the AI workforce.” Their recommendations were largely accepted, and the report led to a “Sector Deal” aimed at solidifying partnerships between the government and the tech industry to “boost innovation in AI.” As we might expect, all the 5G infrastructure and the like is present. Additionally, the UK Government does, in fact, have an Office for Artificial Intelligence, and, as Digital Secretary Oliver Dowden said in March 2021, “Unleashing the power of AI is a top priority in our plan to be the most pro-tech government ever.” A government that, by the way, is helmed by a Conservative. For what it’s worth, like Joe Biden’s campaign to “Build Back Better”—gleaned straight from the World Economic Forum—the Conservatives’ website loudly proclaims that they aim to “Build Back Better” as well.

It’s not like Britain is alone, however, as a Cognilytica report shows that “France, Israel, United Kingdom, and the United States all are equally strong when it comes to AI, with China, Canada, Germany, Japan, and South Korea equally close in their AI strategic strength.” There is a ton of outside capital flowing to these countries as well, such as from Saudi Arabia’s sovereign investment fund to the Japan-based Softbank, for example.

From the vaunted multistakeholder perspective held by organizations such as the World Economic Forum, this is a very good thing. It’s not so much a competition between countries, though it looks that way from the outside, as it is a race to provide more data sets and information to be plugged into the network and accelerate the project. Have you ever noticed that outside of a very few quickly marginalized figures, no one in a position of authority ever seems to question the wisdom of any of this, outside, perhaps of the late Tanzanian President John Magufuli who as a “COVID-19 skeptic” speculatively and all-too-conveniently died of “COVID-19-related complications”?

With COVID-19 as justification, as usual,[1] the WEF noted in July 2020—recalling the Dataist obsession with the free flow of information discussed in my previous article—that, “By necessity, model-based AI (which leverages the data available) saw a resurgence. As the pandemic progressed, and more data was available, data-rich and model-free approaches could be combined, leading to a few key hybrid solutions.” The pandemic, “provided an opportunity for data scientists and AI scientists to put their advanced techniques and tools to use by helping business leaders make decisions in a challenging environment that’s dominated by speed, uncertainty and lack of data.” This will “ensure you can seek solutions quickly while maximizing the technologies and processes already in place.” The same thought process, and the same emphasis on processes and systems already in place but situated to be scaled-up, includes the various medical interventions and global distribution of highly experimental mRNA “vaccines.” Crucially, as Yuval Noah Harari writes in his book Homo Deus, “Science is converging on an all-encompassing dogma, which says that organisms are algorithms and life is data processing.”[2] The dogma is, in fact, a religious revolution, and for Harari, “All truly important revolutions are practical. … Ideas change the world only when they change our behaviour.”[3]

As Kay Firth-Butterfield (Head of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning; Member of the Executive Committee, World Economic Forum) and Anand Rao (Global Leader, Artificial Intelligence, PricewaterhouseCoopers) wrote in May 2020:

Data is critical to build models and validate their accuracy. … In the case of COVID-19, we need to feed models. … Models can be used to change the behaviour of people. We are all familiar with models that make recommendations as to which books we should read and what products we should buy. Similarly, COVID-19 models have changed attitudes and behaviours of health officials, policymakers, government institutions and citizens. … In response to government interventions, citizens have largely complied with restrictions and changed behaviours. They are traveling less, sheltering at home, social distancing and being more conscious of disinfection. They have also changed purchase behaviour. They are shopping online more rather than going to physical stores, and they are consuming more bandwidth as social interactions and entertainment have largely moved online.

They have indeed. That’s not all that’s gone online, either. The World Economic Forum consciously links things like “AI, nanotech, nuclear energy, and GMOs” with quantum computing and the ethical use thereof. As we have seen in the effort to completely re-shape the human experience in record time, what is ethical by the WEF and their compatriots’ definition is pretty far from what any normal, sane person would define as ethical. Nevertheless, whether it be biometric data or agriculture, it’s all got to be brought under control and linked. The World Economic Forum’s New Vision for Agriculture features such partners as Monsanto, DuPont, Cargill, the Wellcome Trust, Walmart, the Rockefeller Foundation, and Unilever. Given the “gifts” we’ve gotten from Monsanto’s GMO monstrosities and their destruction of sustainable agriculture and independent farms, DuPont’s carcinogenic “forever chemicals,” or the shoving of billions into overcrowded hovels and the degradation of the land and food quality courtesy of the Rockefeller Foundation’s efforts in the twentieth century, these are decidedly not the people we want forming a new vision for agriculture, or anything for that matter. But agriculture, like everything else, must be made “smarter.”

According to the World Economic Forum’s Shaping the Future of Technology Governance: Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning—with partners including Lockheed Martin, Salesforce, the Government of Rwanda, the New Zealand Government,[4] Palantir, Huawei, Microsoft, Facebook, and JP Morgan Chase:

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a key driver of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Its effect can be seen in homes, businesses and even public spaces. In its embodied form of robots, it will soon be driving cars, stocking warehouses and caring for the young and elderly. AI holds the promise of solving some of society’s most pressing issues, but also presents challenges such as inscrutable “black box” algorithms, unethical use of data and potential job displacement. As rapid advances in machine learning (ML) increase the scope and scale of AI’s deployment across all aspects of daily life, and as the technology can learn and change on its own, multistakeholder collaboration is required.

Of course, the stakeholders are already in place to provide the solutions to the problems they’ve created! Regarding the inscrutable black boxes specifically, Cynthia Rudin and Joanna Radin explicate:

In machine learning, these black box models are created directly from data by an algorithm, meaning that humans, even those who design them, cannot understand how variables are being combined to make predictions. Even if one has a list of the input variables, black box predictive models can be such complicated functions of the variables that no human can understand how the variables are jointly related to each other to reach a final prediction.

The existence of black box algorithms and self-perpetuating systems lends credence to the idea that the carefully calculated and scripted events we have seen play out over the past eighteen months may well be driven by some sort of superintelligence that merely has humans doing its bidding. For Rudin and Radin, “Trusting a black box model”—trusting the science, as it were—“means that you trust not only the model’s equations, but also the entire database that it was built from.” For Juan Manuel Duran and Karin Rolanda Jongsma, “By outlining that more transparency in algorithms is not always necessary, and by explaining that computational processes are indeed methodologically opaque to humans, we argue that the reliability of algorithms provides reasons for trusting the outcomes of medical artificial intelligence (AI).” Trust the numbers/data set (cough, COVID, cough) and the authorities. Shut up and obey. For Harari:

We are developing superior algorithms that utilise unprecedented computing power and giant databases. The Google and Facebook algorithms not only know exactly how you feel, they also know myriad other things about you that you hardly suspect. Consequently you should stop listening to your feelings and start listening to these external algorithms instead. … Whereas humanism commanded: ‘Listen to your feelings!’ Dataism now commands: ‘Listen to the algorithms! They know how you feel.’[5]

This new religion of Dataism may well spell the death of mankind, or, at the very least the demise of its autonomy. As Harari continues, “If humankind is indeed a single data-processing system, what is its output? Dataists would say that its output will be the creation of a new and even more efficient data-processing system, called the Internet-of-All-Things. Once this mission is accomplished, Homo sapiens will vanish.”[6]

It is not coincidental that Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum’s “Internet of Things” (IoT) and its vast network of sensors and the free flow of information will by “necessity” beget the Internet-of-All-Things (IoAT), the bringing-online of an all-encompassing network representing the coup de grace of humanity and — very possibly — all living matter. The IoAT may well, as Harari writes in Homo Deus, “pervade the whole galaxy and even the whole universe. This cosmic data-processing system would be like God. It will be everywhere and will control everything, and humans are destined to merge into it.”[7] Provided a superintelligence does not eliminate humanity altogether before such a merger occurs. But, in any case, neither scenario is appealing for those who value human life and/or sovereignty.

When humanity is reduced to nothing but sets of code, cut off as it were from the Creator and the responsibility of stewardship, such a philosophical leap becomes quite possible, especially enamored as he is with his own abilities. In the realm of scientism, which is rapidly displacing secular humanism as the prevailing dogma of the people who are actually designing the systems to replace themselves and/or to merge with their creation, the creation of the IoAT has become their religious obsession. For Harari, “In Silicon Valley the Dataist prophets consciously use traditional messianic language. For example, Ray Kurzweil’s book of prophecies is called The Singularity is Near, echoing John the Baptist’s cry: ‘the kingdom of heaven is near’ (Matthew 3:2).”[8],[9]

As I stated in my previous article, these zealots are not content to allow unmodified humanity to exist unmolested. As Harari writes, “Dataism is also missionary. Its second commandment is to link everything to the system, including heretics who don’t want to be plugged in. And ‘everything’ means more than just humans. It means every thing.”[10] Thus the World Economic Forum and its obsession with Smart Cities and a vast network encompassing everything from biometric data to trees in the park takes on a whole new light. With an impetus to “build back better”—where have we heard that before?—the WEF’s Global Future Council on Cities of Tomorrow notes that they “will seek to identify how cities can be re-designed to build back better and provide the climate and resilience, social and digital infrastructure to do so.” With partnering organizations such as Microsoft, Peking University, the Australian Smart Communities Association, Access Israel, Google, the Centre for Digital Built Britain, Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, Columbia University, Bloomberg Associates, the Canada Infrastructure Bank, and the King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACST), the WEF’s Future of Cities initiative encompasses the Global Future Council on Cities of Tomorrow, as well as Infrastructure 4.0, Net Zero Carbon Cities, and the G20 Global Smart Cities Alliance (note the constant inclusion of the buzzword “smart,” which typically occurs in close proximity to others like “sustainable”—with the proposals anything but—and “clean”).

The World Economic Forum’s Platform for Shaping the Future of the Internet of Things and Urban Transformation states that, with COVID-19 having “forced us to rethink the way we live. It is transforming industries and how we do business. It is intensifying social and environmental crises in our communities. And it is challenging fundamental assumptions and global trends. … A growing suite of connected devices and smart technologies, commonly referred to as the internet of things (IoT), offers a means to reimagine and transform physical spaces—our homes, offices, factories, farms, healthcare facilities and public spaces.” COVID-19 forced none of this, but was a handy excuse to accelerate projects and proposals years in the making, in the same way that pressure for everyone to get the so-called “vaccine” represents the chance for a very large sample size to test mRNA modifications on, if not itself be the Trojan Horse to cause a mass die-off and get those pesky carbon emissions under control. Other possibilities include the uploading of more data sets into the expanding IoAT and a breaking-down of biological barriers to biotechnological mergers.

Indeed, were one to break down all of the barriers to getting everything online, you’d do worse than using the language of humanism to do it—the WEF’s Future of the Connected World initiative lists “combatting inequality” alongside other essential actions, such as “improving security,” which will be familiar to readers of my last piece as these things are all of a piece. In fact, their inherent neatness and seamlessness almost leads one to wonder if there is already a kind of superintelligence guiding the implementation of all of these systems which can and do operate independent of human intervention in many cases already — often needing only human inputs, which gives grim meaning to “human resources,” does it not? In a grotesque paradox, many of the most avowed liberal humanists such as Niall Ferguson cede human sovereignty to systems; is it such a stretch to go from The Square and the Tower’s premise that “Man, with his unrivaled neural network, was born to network” to Man actually becoming the network? Reflect on the social network that is Facebook, for example, and consider the role of data in its expanding AI efforts. For Stuart Montgomery, “One of the most common iterations of machine learning in use today is called a ‘neural network,’ because it takes its basic metaphorical structure from the brain.” After all, all processes are reducible to algorithms to follow Harari’s logic—a logic, it should be noted, that is widely held by many a Dataist. Crucially, for Harari and synching with Ferguson:

Every day I absorb countless data … and transmit back new bits. … I don’t really know where I fit into the greater scheme of things. … This relentless flow of data sparks new inventions and disruptions that nobody plans, controls or comprehends. … No one needs to understand. All you need to do is answer your emails faster—and allow the system to read them. … As the global data-processing system becomes all-knowing and all-powerful, so connecting to the system becomes the source of all meaning.[11]

In this way we can see the utter reliance of humans on the systems they’ve constructed, not the other way around. Rather than gods, humans have made themselves into slaves, serving the system and becoming just more data sets in the process. As Harari writes, “Dataism isn’t anti-humanist. It has nothing against human experiences. It just doesn’t think they are intrinsically valuable.” It is not a stretch here to go from the worthlessness of human experiences to the worthlessness of humans.

Our extinction in one possible scenario is simply a by-product. For Gordon Bell of Microsoft Research, “Singularity is that point in time when computing is able to know all human and natural-systems knowledge and exceed it in problem-solving capability with the diminished need for humankind as we know it. I basically support the notion.” In trying to upgrade humanity, Harari concedes it “may not be enough” and that humanity may well need to be “retired.” This is should we continue on the current trajectory, and the entirety of the so-called “elites” are committed to doing just that, whether they are Dataists, techno-humanists, power-mad sociopaths, or servile functionaries (or some combination thereof).

A slightly different point of view is held by John Casti of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria and designer of computer simulations of complex human systems, like the stock market, highway traffic, and the insurance industry: “I think [the singularity is] scientifically and philosophically on sound footing. The only real issue for me is the time frame over which the singularity will unfold. [The singularity represents] the end of the supremacy of Homo sapiens as the dominant species on planet Earth. At that point a new species appears, and humans and machines will go their separate ways, not merge one with the other.” Though Casti does not believe this implies machines or superintelligences annihilating humans (“unless human interests start to interfere with those of the machines”), it is telling that he cites the relationship of humans with bees—whom we exploit for resources and to whom we are societally indifferent to their declining populations as we wreak havoc on the environment.

The globalist network must now be understood in the context of this project. Although perhaps not even all senior leadership is on board with this particular vision, this is the prevailing vision of those who are implementing autonomous systems, using high-energy particle physics (CERN) to try to unlock sub-atomic secrets, and driving the quantum-computing explosion and the proliferation of the infrastructure to support the IoAT. The talk about “sustainability” and “combatting inequality” is just co-opted humanist drivel; admittedly, many people preaching and practicing this globalist vision believe in these ideals, but they are a means to an end. As Jeff Merritt, Head of IoT, Robotics and Smart Cities for the World Economic Forum, Center for the Fourth Industrial Revolution states, “Our research on hundreds of IoT implementations showed that 84 percent of them directly addressed, or had the potential to address, UN Sustainable Development Goals.”

The United Nations is a very useful vehicle, especially if for Dataists the unrestricted flow of information in ever-increasing velocity—like goods, capital, and labor for globalist neo-liberals before them—is viewed as the central pillar of their religion. We know that the World Economic Forum and the United Nations signed a Strategic Partnership Framework outlining areas of cooperation to “deepen institutional engagement and jointly accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” The Strategic Partnership Framework, signed in June 2019, focuses on the areas of not just financing the 2030 Agenda, but also on digital cooperation, health, education and skills, gender equality and the empowerment of women, and climate change. As the UN Secretary-General’s “Roadmap for Financing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” outlines:

The 2030 Agenda, with its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Agreement on climate change provide a pathway for a more prosperous, equitable and sustainable future. The Addis Ababa Action Agenda (AAAA) establishes a blueprint to support the implementation of the 2030 Agenda by providing a global framework for financing sustainable development that aligns all financing flows and policies with economic, social and environmental priorities. … The upcoming ‘decade of action’ (2020 – 2030) requires significant public and private investment to bring the SDGs and goals of the Paris Agreement to life for all people, everywhere.

In other words, creating a fully-integrated global network. While Harari claims that the “relentless flow of data sparks new inventions and disruptions that nobody plans, controls or comprehends,” that’s not entirely accurate, at least at this juncture (unless, as some have surmised, a superintelligence guiding events has already been brought online—a superintelligence that, theologically, could represent a downright sinister inhabitation).

The World Economic Forum, foremost champion of this project, is not some fringe organization, either. In addition to the partners previously mentioned, among the staggering array are included: BlackRock, Bloomberg, the Gates Foundation, Amazon, Zoom, Visa, Tyson Foods, Uber, Coca-Cola, the State Bank of India, the Royal Bank of Canada, Qatar National Bank, PayPal, Pfizer, Palantir, Alibaba, Pepsi, the American Heart Association, AstraZeneca, the New York Times, Bank of America, NBCUniversal, Nasdaq, the Development Bank of Southern Africa, the New York Stock Exchange, Grain Management, Google, Facebook, Nestlé, Goldman Sachs, Huawei, the Islamic Development Bank, IBM, Heineken, Johnson & Johnson, LinkedIn, JP Morgan Chase, the Mayo Clinic, Manchester United, Mastercard, and the list goes on and on.

Understanding that many aspects of this topic require the reader to go out on quite a limb, at bare minimum, whether they believe them or not, the zealots of Dataism, just the same as the zealots of communism or “social justice,” do believe in what they’re preaching and doing with religious fervor. It is worth recalling that there was a slight possibility that the Trinity tests of the Manhattan Project could ignite the atmosphere, but they went ahead anyway. This naturally begs the question: will you “follow the science”?


[1] By the way, if you were already feeling persecuted for your beliefs, Bloomberg is now priming the population for amped-up targeting via the “vaccine” with some ready-made scapegoats for the next engineered outbreak:

As much of the country emerges from masking and social distancing, undervaccinated pockets in the U.S. still threaten to bring the virus roaring back. Less than 25% of the population is fully vaccinated in at least 482 counties, according to an analysis of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data by Bloomberg News. Many of these counties are more rural and less economically advantaged than the rest of the U.S., and a majority of their voters in the last presidential election chose Donald Trump.

[2] Harari, Yuval Noah, Homo Deus, 2017. p. 402.

[3] Ibid. p. 395.

[4] The New Zealand Government is deeply enmeshed with the WEF’s AI projects; as a 2020 white paper informs:

A number of initiatives in New Zealand – such as the government’s Algorithm Assessment Report, the Centre for AI and Public Policy, Otago University report, Government Use of AI in New Zealand, and the AI Forum of New Zealand’s work on AI in the economy and society – have raised the importance of AI and explored opportunities…New Zealand has expressed interest in working with the Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution on this topic, given the need for a global, multistakeholder perspective on the complex question of regulating AI. New Zealand has been keen to work with the Centre to identify tools and approaches that would promote innovation, protect society and build trust in AI use…Also in New Zealand, the Data Futures Partnership framed social licence in 2017 as the acceptance by individuals for organizations to use their data, information and stories.

[5] Harari. p. 397.

[6] Ibid. p. 386.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Our friend from last time, Bill Gates, describes Kurzweil’s vision as “optimistic.”

[10] Ibid. p. 387.

[11] Ibid. pp. 390-91.

Happy Juneteenth, Charles Murray

It is difficult to overstate the significance of Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein’s The Bell Curve to the thinking of pre-Alt Right White identitarians, specifically its section on the cognitive and behavioral differences between the races. The dominant mission of the movement then was propagating the forbidden truth of racial differences. When I first became aware of the scene in the mid-aughts, the general sense was that if we could just find a way to get people the truth, it might just blow-the-lid off the entire rotten establishment.

Of course, that day of racial reckoning never came. Perhaps the most obvious flaw in that way of thinking is that everybody already knows about racial differences, and aside from us and the far-Left who are always trying to censor us, nobody much cares. Sure, most people do not want to send their children to “bad schools,” and they know to avoid certain neighborhoods at night, but this kind of behavior has about as much political significance as the instinct to pull your hand away from a hot surface. I don’t want to exaggerate the pollyannaism of us then; pretty much all the ideas we talk about now were present then too (and the doom-posting was there too), but the emphasis was definitely different, and the idea that race realism (as we often called it then) would be our salvation was certainly the era’s most prominent meme.

Anyway, Murray has a new book called Facing Reality: Two Truths About Race in America (there are significant racial differences in (1) intellectual aptitude and (2) rates of violent criminality), and aside from a few people on our side and a couple leftist inquisitors, once again no one is going to care. In fact, this is not a book review, because I myself don’t care to read the damn thing.

I am not saying that Human Biodiversity research (HBD) must serve a political end to be an interesting topic in its own right, but, c’mon, differences in intelligence and crime rates? We’ve all read this stuff a hundred times. Even HBD enthusiasts have moved on to earwax composition; get with the times Charlie. Even the title seems like an out-of-date reference to race realists.

•    •    •    •

Murray is the archetypal conservative of the leftist imagination who yearns for a past that never existed. His stated purpose in writing this book is to save America’s unique liberal individualist heritage from disintegrating into either a racial spoils system, or into racial Balkanization.

I am also aware of a paradox: I want America to return to the ideal of treating people as individuals, so I have to write a book that treats Americans as groups. But there’s no way around it. Those of us who want to defend the American creed have been unwilling to say openly that races have significant group differences. Since we have been unwilling to say that, we have been defenseless against claims that racism is to blame for unequal outcomes. What else could it be? We have been afraid to answer candidly.

The logical conclusion of the notion that all races’ abilities are inherently equal is that unequal racial outcomes must be the result of unequal treatment. More and more, this is the conclusion the Left is settling on, and that’s no good because that leads to thinking in terms of groups rather than individuals. Even more worrisome to Murray, it could provoke the last remaining suckers who still buy into the individualist myth, namely Whites, to start thinking of themselves as a group with interests. 

Murray is quite right that leftist analysis of racial inequality in America gets the arrow of causation wrong, but the irony is that his own conception of the American creed has things equally backward. In Murray’s imagination, back in the good old days of his youth America was a liberal individualist nation that just happened to have a dominant White majority. In reality, it was a White nation that just happened to have liberal individualist beliefs. What made it a nation was the White part, not the liberal individualist part. Unlike many on our side, I am not anti-liberal individualism. Generally speaking, it is a decent way to run things. But that’s all it is, a way to run things. It is not a reason for being.

If you try to make it into a national reason-for-being, as America has, something else will swoop-in to fill-the-void. For most of American history, implicit White identity filled that void. When Murray was a youth, the implicitly White arrangement was beginning to come undone, and apparently he, as so many others of his vintage, interpreted this as us shedding our racist baggage to more perfectly embrace our liberal individualist identity. We were finally going to ‘live up to our founding ideals,’ and ‘judge a man not the color of his skin, but by the content of his character.’

And it’s not like that was all fake. Embarrassingly, people were genuinely motivated by these ideas. But at the end of the day, liberal individualism can never be an identity. It creates a void, and now that void is filled by anti-White identity. You could say that liberal individualism, as an end in itself, morphed into anti-White identity, but in practice, it’s the same difference. Behind the equity rhetoric, and the diversity-is-our-greatest-strength slogans, opposition to Whiteness is the legitimizing myth of the American state and its intelligentsia. And while a large share of the general public objects to the anti-White language of some of the more strident “antiracists,” anti-Whiteness has long established itself as the implicit normie consensus. This is why mainstream conservatives accept that it is perfectly fair for other races to defend themselves as races, but even when countering anti-White racism, they never dare defend themselves as Whites.

Conservatives might say I am missing the larger picture, that what we are really facing is an assault on the entire American and Western heritage, or it’s all about socialist big business taking away our freedoms. But no, anti-Whiteness is the larger picture. That is the regime’s reason-for-being. After all, conservatives are very willing to defend America and the West, they are quite comfortable defending Christianity, and they are equally at ease attacking socialism or woke business or woke socialist business. But they are absolutely terrified to defend Whites by name. Indeed, one of their primary modes of defending America or Western culture’s honor is to insist that those things nothing to do with Whites!

For sure, it is true that leftist pathologies extend beyond anti-White resentment. And obviously our politics is broader than demonization of Whitey. But that is sort of the point, the idea of defending, let alone celebrating, Whites as Whites is understood to be off-the-table. And that reflects the fact that the implicit consensus is anti-Whiteness. If the national story we tell ourselves is of the gradual extension of tolerance and equal opportunity to all, the bold-print subtext of that story is the overcoming of Whiteness. And in practical effect, White identity is made the negative moral center of that American story.

I am not arguing that the vast majority of Americans are actively anti-White. To use the Kendian language, most are non-White identitarians, not anti-White identitarians. Anti-Whiteness has not bewitched 95% of Americans, body and soul, by any means. Of course not. In fact, I have no doubt that a large share of conservative Whites, maybe a majority, would prefer America to be a predominantly White country, or a Christian country, or a White Christian country. But they have been trained that it is wrong to speak, or even consciously think, in those terms. Which says it all. Anti-Whiteness may not be an especially stable national identity—it is an inherently divisive project—but for the time being, that is its role.

It’s possible I am overstating the anti-Whiteness thing, maybe it is only the most prominent component of a more expansive left-wing project of resentment. But that is ultimately beside the point. The larger picture, remember, is that Murray’s beloved liberal individualism is not suited to be an end in itself. Something will fill the vacuum, whether it’s anti-Whiteness or whatever else, but liberal individualism does not make a nation. And whatever it is you think is filling that vacuum at the moment, at the very least we can agree that it is hostile to White identity.

The Bell Curve era of White nationalism was a failure because its strategy was only to hitch White nationalism to liberal individualism.Their argument was that White nationalism was a necessary evil because diversity gets in the way of a peaceful Last Man existence. Like Murray, they had things backwards; liberal individualism is the means, not the end. And by the mid-aughts, the end was opposition to White identity, and thus White-nationalism-as-a-means-to-liberal-individualism was doomed from the start.

I do not expect that Murray or the rest of mainstream conservatism to learn anything from their decades of abysmal failure. They will continue to shout of the virtues of colorblindness and the dangers of identity politics for as long as anyone will listen. But that also means that there will remain a vacuum on the Right, and it is our job to fill it.

Ryan Andrews is a regular contributor to Affirmative Right. This article is reposted with permission.  He is the author of the forthcoming book The Elective Nation

Guillaume Faye: The Necessity of Contemplating an Ethnic War for Survival

Guillaume Faye
Prelude to War: Chronicle of the Coming Cataclysm
Arktos, 2021. 

“A people who no longer think about waging war are finished, drained of their substance and worn out from the inside.”
Guillaume Faye, Prelude to War

I discovered the writings of Guillaume Faye only after his death in 2019, when Arktos published a translation of Guerre civile raciale (A Racial Civil War). In the process of reading and reviewing that work, I wrestled with a writer whose style and content both gripped and informed, infuriated and exasperated. Reading Faye is, above all, an experience, and often an exhausting but irresistible one, something agreed upon by those who worked to compile the literary memorial to him published at the start of this year. It was therefore with a mixture of excitement and trepidation that I discovered Arktos had recently released a volume of translations of Faye’s earlier and most explosive texts including his highly controversial The New Jewish Question and his uncompromising, brutalist writings on the problem of Muslim mass migration. Since my expectations concerning the volume were mixed, it brought a smile to my face to see Faye, always the prophet, a step ahead of me in his introduction with the warning that: “Once you have finished reading this book, you may find yourself persuaded or disgusted; optimistic or pessimistic.” I’m glad to report that I emerged from this book persuaded and optimistic, and also convinced that, the usual idiosyncratic unevenness to Faye’s thought aside, this is the single best volume of the enigmatic Frenchman’s work available in English.

The volume opens with a competent, but unfortunately irritating, Foreword by Constantin von Hoffmeister. We are introduced to a broad overview of Faye’s thought, which is unnecessarily peppered with nasty asides at some of the very people most likely to now read and admire Faye’s work. We are told, for example, of a need to rid different nationalist groupings of “archaic positions, such as the outdated animosity towards Jews.” First, it should be considered an axiom that any people that starts believing the Jewish Question to be relegated to the past will soon find itself relegated to the past. Or to put it another way — patronize this issue at your peril. One of the irritating features of some nationalist writing from Europe is that it is overwhelmingly fixated on its primary, sensory experience of multiracialism (mass Muslim migration) while remaining ignorant or dismissive of the intensive Jewish politico-cultural entrenchment directly experienced by those in other jurisdictions (perhaps none more than the United States). One often finds the naive and simplistic need to have only one opponent at a time, with the chosen villain of the present panic rendering all other problems distant or merely “archaic.” With generosity, one might excuse von Hoffmeister’s comments by way of education (brainwashing) in Germany and experience (the undeniable and obvious effrontery of Muslim encroachment), but how then to explain why, a few pages later, von Hoffmeister accuses a nameless and amorphous mass called “the managerial class” of having “duped the people into committing civilizational suicide for inglorious amounts of shekels”?

Why the dog whistle? If the managerial class is acting on behalf of those capable of issuing massive bribes of shekels, then we are obviously talking about Jewish influence. I have no problem with this kind of coded language, but I do have a problem with denunciations of anti-Semitism (archaic!) occupying the same few paragraphs as dog whistles appealing to anti-Semitism (shekels!). It’s confusing and unnecessary. As a general rule, if your country’s laws, or your personal public position, limit what you can say about Jews, then it is best to refrain from addressing the subject at all, rather than engaging in a rhetorical game of peekaboo with the government and your readers that only serves to demoralize and disorient. The same can be said for von Hoffmeister’s claim that the Kalergi Plan is “non-existent,” which appears alongside his warnings about a coming multiracial “New World Order.” I finished the Foreword utterly confused as to what von Hoffmeister believes, and quite relieved that I could finally get to Faye’s writings which, while always challenging, are considerably clearer in terms of their logical progression.

The volume very quickly recovers from its opening bum note. Faye always excelled in his adoption of the role of prophet, and despite his deep loathing of the prophets of Judaism and Christianity, he was in his own way a masterful apocalyptic preacher capable of blending the aggression and fanaticism of a Jeremiah with a distinctly European fatalism of the kind found in the Iliad. Faye, in a sense, wandered a cultural desert, uttering warnings in a political wilderness. Faye the Prophet wastes no time in this text, warning us plainly in his introduction that our days are numbered, that our materialistic and individualistic culture will soon be destroyed, and that our “bourgeois habits might be experiencing their final moments.” This is a book that covers a wide variety of subjects over twenty-one chapters, but which always returns to the inevitability of war, and of deepening conflict in all areas of life. Faye relishes the prospect, believing there to be “no universal morality.” An obvious Nietzschean, he declares that Good and Evil don’t exist and that “might is always right.” Faye demanded of Europeans that they simply engage in the fight to survive, because “whether one likes it or not, only the will to survive, demographic proliferation and combativeness can prevail over the reassuring and suicidal discourse espoused by the scribes of decadence.”

The book really begins with the impressive and aggressive first chapter, “Facing Islam.” I found it surprising that only one chapter in the volume concerned Islam, given Faye’s well-known preoccupation with the subject, but it does form a subtle background note to the rest of the book. Anyone familiar with Faye will anticipate the tone and direction of the material here. Faye warned that Muslims in Europe are ready and willing to “wage a war of revenge and conquest on our own soil.” Rather than seeing matters through a purely religious lens, Faye insists that what we are really witnessing is the beginning of an “ethnic civil war.” In this conflict, Islam has been adopted as a banner and identitarian standard, but we can see that “at the start, the Browns were completely indifferent to their own religion and were only interested in parasitic consumerism.” Ethnic grievance, for Faye, is the true driver of the coming war, whereas Islam will merely provide a useful veneer to the “Browns” who can use it tactically to enhance group cohesion and morale. Faye insists that Islam (“a vast undertaking of mental stupefaction”) is dangerous in its own right, however, and contrasts it with less totalitarian monotheisms like Christianity. Because of its role as “the purest kind of totalitarianism in existence,” Faye advocates only the strongest of responses to it:

No containment strategy could ever distress them. Islam only retreats when its members are told that one intends to eliminate it, to eradicate it once and for all. One must arouse fear in them, not negotiate. The only language that Islam understands is the language of force; such is its culture.

Faye closes the chapter with a condemnation of Western foreign policy in Muslim lands, arguing that the best cure for Islamic terrorism in Europe is to “abstain from bombarding Muslim countries and do the housework on our own soil.”

The second chapter of the volume, “Neo-Terrorism: Why One Should Be Pessimistic,” picks up the baton left by the opening chapter and delves deeper into the problem of Muslim terrorism in Europe. The volume unfortunately provides no guide to the dates on which the various essays/chapters were originally published, but some light exegesis led me to believe that the majority of the volume’s work was written in the handful of years immediately following 9/11 — roughly, the period 2002–2007. With this dating, some of Faye’s predictions appear remarkably prescient given the rapid increase in Muslim terrorism in Europe between 2010 and 2015, culminating in the 2015 massacre at the Bataclan in Paris. Probably writing no more than a few months after 9/11, Faye warned that Muslim terrorism would “spread considerably during the first decades of the twenty-first century,” boosted by the mediatization of society (especially the role of the internet) and the drive to pursue ever more spectacular forms of terrorist attack. Faye is once more scathing of Western responses to Islamic terror, singling out the response of the United States to 9/11 and comparing it to a “cowboy who pulls out his pistol to target wasps that he cannot even see.” Faye lamented the West’s ability to combat Muslim terrorism because Muslim migration itself represents a kind of quasi-military reinforcement and because Muslim terror networks are almost impenetrable even to the most skilled secret service agencies. The most crucial error of all, however, is the fact that

Europeans and Americans are utterly blind to the coming ethnic civil war and a demographic flood that is far graver than terrorism. What causes a people’s demise is neither the use of bombs nor military operations, but ethnic flooding. The primary and most effective weapon of war has always been embodied by an invasion of foreign populations, naturalisations, and a gradual seizure of power by foreigners.

The book’s third chapter, “The American Adversary,” is one of the slower-paced entries. It deals with an anti-Americanism that is quite specific to France, and which might leave many in the Anglosphere scratching their heads. There are some arguments that are becoming more current in Third Positionist discourse in our circles, including the idea that America is not a nation or empire, but “a massive commercial and financial undertaking supported by the military-industrial complex and founded upon the necessity of a permanent state of war.” To this kind of thinking I can only reply that there’s an element of truth to this analysis of the structure and expression of American power, but it also leaves a great deal unsaid. Most importantly, I believe there is definitely an American nation, even an ethnic (White) nation, but it is sublimated in the current culture and has been for several decades due to propaganda and demonization, the latter of which has ramped up enormously in recent years with the institutionalization of Critical Race Theory. Faye himself straddles both sides of the argument, believing that Europe and America can and should be strong allies, but insisting that American culture is built around war, “but not the glorious kind: hypocritical warfare, the offspring of commerce and industry.” For Faye, the United States represents a problem because of its influence in European affairs, but this problem should be regarded as temporary because the US displays “a purely material and mechanical appearance of power.” He insists that America lacks any sort of “demographic, cultural, spiritual, or, in short, historical foundation. It is a power comprised of merchants and brokers, the fleeting power of a short-lived civilisation.” As proof of his argument for American decline, Faye predicts “in 2030, the US will probably no longer be a mostly Anglo-Saxon country, but a Hispanic/African/Asian one, a fact that will alter quite a few perspectives.” Ethnically diluted, America will be unable to contend with the rise of China and the demographic expansion of Islam, both of which possess a foundation of longevity to their power that the United States lacks. Faye, I must be clear, doesn’t celebrate American decline, but rather he contextualizes it within what he perceives to be a coming globalized war: “the conflict shall, generally speaking, involve a clash between the White race and all others.”

On this note, the book moves to a brief chapter titled “Towards a New Cold War Between China and the USA.” Faye points out that American militarism has most often been directed only against small countries like Vietnam, Panama, and Serbia, but now faces “the enormous China, a terrifying challenger which, thanks to its 1.25 billion inhabitants, can indeed withstand any losses resulting from nuclear strikes and is now endowing itself with long-range missiles.” The chapter contains an interesting analysis of the character of Chinese nationalism, and the Chinese perspective (fiercely relativist) on the notion of democracy and the philosophy of human rights.

The fifth chapter of the volume, “Towards an Ethnic Civil War in Europe,” contains material that will be very familiar to those who read Faye’s Ethnic Apocalypse (originally published in French as Guerre civile raciale). The content here is an exceptional dissection of race relations in France that has overwhelming relevance to multiracial societies everywhere. Take, for example, his discussion of anti-police riots in France, written more than a decade before last year’s Summer of Floyd:

The mechanism that triggers such rioting is always identical: a police officer injures or kills an Afro-Maghrebi delinquent that had aggressed him to avoid getting arrested (after being caught red-handed); alternatively a French citizen is attacked and, overwhelmed with fear, defends himself … Police interventions and law enforcement actions are regarded as virtually political and territorial provocations.

One example provided by Faye, that made me laugh until I pondered the seriousness of it all, concerns a riot that followed the death of “a man named Kamel, who had died as a result of having severed his femoral artery while smashing the window of a shop he was burgling.” All of which goes to prove quite clearly that these riots are not about justice and security but rather, as Faye argues, about ethnic claims on territory and attempts to gain an advantage in competitive racial politics. For Faye, aggressive race riots are nothing more than a prelude to racial civil war, since “war always begins in public spaces and through provocations. It is animal-like and ethological.”

Whites are paralyzed from acting against this process, or even perceiving it, in part because of the nature of the relationship between White socio-economic classes. This theme comprises the volume’s sixth chapter, “The New Social War and the Economic Crisis.” Faye explores the evolution of leftist parties into bourgeois movements, and astutely points out that the mindset of the bourgeoisie “can only acknowledge competition in an economic context.” Blind to competition outside this paradigm (e.g., racial competition), “the entire Left despises our native people.” In today’s Europe, Faye argues:

The Left embodies the most refined expression of the worst possible aspects of the bourgeois ideology: cosmopolitanism, hatred for our native people and its traditions, the worship of money concealed under a façade of philanthropic motivations, xenophile, etc.

The ‘anti-racist’ bourgeois “are always careful to enroll their children in private and foreigner-free schools,” but elsewhere there is a “class complicity between the ruling anti-racist bourgeois upper class and the immigrant-colonisers to the detriment of our native population, a population that works, pays and suffers every act of violence.” Faye attacks French culture, which he sees as undervaluing manual work while lavishing praise on “parasitic professions” like journalists, TV presenters, and public intellectuals. The chapter closes with a scathing indictment of White guilt, and a call for investment in “high-quality education and a dynamic demography based on pro-natalist policy.”

At this stage, the volume departs from thematic connection between chapters and launches quite unexpectedly into Faye’s controversial 2007 essay, “The New Jewish Question.” Although familiar with Faye’s attitudes to Jews as expressed in Ethnic Apocalypse, this was my first time reading “The New Jewish Question” in full. Predictably, given loud (and perhaps unfair) accusations that Faye revealed himself as a Zionist by publishing it, there is some material in the essay that I strongly disagree with. Overall, however, I have to say that it is not as bad as a thought it would be. Faye is certainly not a Zionist, but neither is he anti-Zionist. He is extremely dismissive of the situation faced by the Palestinians, but declares “I am neither philosemitic nor antisemitic.” He later refines this statement to “I am judeo-indifferent.” Whether such declarations are tenable given the saturation of Jewish interests in the life of the West is the real question here, and for my part I was unconvinced by Faye’s argument that one can simply abstain from any and all positions involving Jews. In fact, it seems a rather easy and convenient way out of some very difficult questions.

Faye advocates complete disinterest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on two grounds. The first is that he assumes that “the state of Israel may eventually disappear,” and therefore that the problem is in any case temporary. Second, Faye insists that no amount of help for Muslims experiencing problems in the Middle East will stem the tide of Muslim migration to Europe because migration flows have preceded all such conflicts and are unaffected by material circumstances in Muslim nations. Faye insists that “despite its apparent military power, Israel will not last long” because “its demographic flooding at the hands of Palestinian Arabs, regardless of whether the latter are Israeli citizens or not, is inevitable, since their fertility rate is twice as high as that of all Israeli Jews.”

Personally, I have deep reservations about Faye’s claims in this regard, based not least on the fact that Jewish birth rates in Israel have now surpassed those of Arabs, leading the Jewish Policy Center to declare that “the so-called population time bomb has disappeared in Israel.” I can think of no other nation on earth that demonstrates as much open concern about its racial composition, birth rates, and demographics as Israel, and one gets the impression that nothing is “off the table” in terms of what the Jews of Israel are prepared to do in order to maintain control of that territory. In short, the demographic flooding of Jews in Israel is far from inevitable, and is in fact extremely unlikely. In relation to Faye’s second point, he seems to miss the importance of moral arguments in Jewish propaganda on behalf of Israel, and in Jewish apologetic propaganda more generally. Although I certainly have no love for Arabs or Palestinians, I’ve always found pro-Palestinian rallies to be extremely interesting and useful counterpoints to Jewish dominance of Western moral narratives, and the many denunciations of Israeli atrocities have done much to dent, impede, or at least complicate narratives of the Jews as history’s perpetual and blameless victims. Aid for Palestine therefore doesn’t need to be focused solely on the stemming of migrant flows (I agree with Faye that they proceed regardless), but can remain a reasonable activity for anyone seeking to hinder Zionist influence and narratives globally.

Another flaw in Faye’s argument is that he seemed to believe that American Zionism is based not on the influence of powerful American Jewish lobbies, but solely on an American strategic drive to dominate the region a la Noam Chomsky. In this view, Israel constitutes nothing more than a passive partner to American ambitions, and it can be replaced with intensified American relations with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt. Faye fully expected the eventual abandonment of Israel by the United States, an event that doesn’t seem, to any reasonable observer, even remotely conceivable now or at any future date.

Faye’s understanding of Jewish influence also left a lot to be desired. He concedes that “Jewish intellectuals” have been at the forefront of “immigrational laxism,” but later insists that “Jewish ambition is limited to a sort of spiritual and intellectual philosophy.” Much as I admire Faye’s writings, this is shameless nonsense. While “The New Jewish Question” is an interesting and novel essay, I must make it clear that while there are many reasons to read Faye, one of them is not to come to grips with Jewish matters. Faye failed miserably in this area, and there is, quite frankly, little I can offer in terms of mitigation other than the remark I made on reviewing Ethnic Apocalypse: “I see a paralysis-like error in [Faye’s] thinking, brought about by a quite understandable reaction to the stark and visible Islamisation of France.”

The volume recovers from this dip in quality very well, with Faye’s eighth chapter on “Europe and the Third World — An Impossible Combination.” The author attacks White guilt in relation to Africa (“this unintelligent continent”), and condemns the White charitable endeavors that have led to mass African demographic growth. The steady movement of this excess population into the West has swamped us with “aggressive beggars and false eternal victims.” Faye laments that Africa was ever colonized by Europeans, stressing that “in the absence of northern countries, Black Africa would return to the Neolithic in the space of one single generation.”

Chapters 9 through 17 deal with problems in contemporary culture, ranging from White “collaborationists” in multiculturalism, to the conceits of French intellectualism and political correctness. The seventeenth chapter, “Decadence — A Prelude to Collapse,” was one of my favorites, and deals with the imposition of “effeminate models” of behavior on European males. Faye attacks pornography, the promotion of homosexuality, and feminism for weakening our capability of waging a “war of wombs.” There are some terrific aphorisms in this chapter, alongside Faye’s typically scathing tone (“‘Tolerant’ people are imbeciles.”)

The book comes to a close with four essays that adopt a more philosophical tone. The most interesting of these is “Is Christianity Still Capable of Struggle?” I thought that Faye was hard but fair on Christianity in this piece, pointing out that Christianity has been so flexible and adaptive over time that a fifteenth-century priest would hardly recognize the religion we see today. This same flexibility and adaptiveness have allowed altruistic elements of Christian discourse to be “adopted by trade unions, parties, associations, and leagues, and people, therefore, no longer have any need of it, nor of its impoverished rites devoid of long-lost sacredness.” Faye also attacks the individualism in Western Christian notions of marriage (love matches), which he sees as directly responsible for “demographic decline and the collapse of the clan-based family for the benefit of unfertile and unstable nuclei that are henceforth open to the worst kind of psychopathy, namely the existence of homosexual couples.” Further, the secularization of certain Christian values has been catastrophic:

Never before have people talked so much about “loving their neighbour, and never before have social selfishness, disdain for the state of matrimony, the shattering of our close bonds of solidarity, lack of civic-mindedness, materialistic cynicism and violence been so prevailingly widespread.

That being said, I thought there were some points made by Faye against Christianity that were rather weak, not least his claim that Christianity promotes belief in the inherent goodness of man. This would surely come as a surprise to anyone familiar with the doctrine of original sin and the fallen state of Man and the world. The essay, despite its faults, will challenge and intrigue both Christians and non-Christians, and was in my view one of the highlights of the volume.

Concluding Remarks

Why read Faye? Certainly not for well-considered analysis of the Jewish Question. Nor, I must say, should one read Faye for his prophecies — he claims in his conclusion, for example, that “it is about 2010 that the great about-turn [in our favor] will begin.” The failure of this particular prediction provides a useful warning against the development of nationalist eschatologies (‘end of the world’ theories) based on allegedly imminent societal collapses, and Faye was an enthusiastic expert in the production of such eschatologies. With Islamic terrorism seemingly contained for the time being, or at least limited to events that Faye would not regard as “spectacular,” we must come to the realization that much more likely than sudden collapse is prolonged social, cultural, and demographic decline. This phenomenon is infinitely more difficult to oppose and reverse, but Faye had remarkably little to say on this subject. He was intensely disturbed by Muslim mass migration, and rightly so, but it tainted his work with a panicked quality operating on assumptions of a limited time horizon. This, I feel, will tend to limit the place of his work in posterity.

With these caveats out of the way, however, there remain many reasons to read Faye, and to read this volume in particular. Faye had a remarkable talent for writing, and his works are masterclasses in punchy, aggressive, and direct explorations of some of the most pressing problems facing contemporary Western peoples. Reading Faye, one is shocked at his lack of concern for France’s speech laws, a disregard that led to a number of appearances in court. Faye was courageous and bold, and his ideas are often bumpy and uneven, but always sincere. Perhaps the best reason to read Faye is that, despite his penchant for a coming apocalypse, he was an optimist. One can therefore read Faye to be encouraged. He closed this volume, after all, with the words: “Do not despair.”

Critical Race Theory as a Jewish Intellectual Weapon

Make no mistake about it: we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed — not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed.
Noel Ignatiev in his journal Race Traitor

The open pursuance of ‘Whiteness Studies’ must be perceived as nothing less than an act of extreme, even violent, aggression against the White race.
Andrew Joyce on Whiteness Studies

To be effective, social engineering cannot be perceived.
Michael Jones in Logos Rising

Earlier this year, my brother suddenly asked me what “Critical Race Theory” was. I was elated, for this was proof that this pernicious, genocidal, anti-White theory was finally entering into the consciousness of Whites. Since my brother asked me, stories about Critical Race Theory (CRT) have mushroomed, including much criticism of this previously arcane intellectual trend.

Much to my amazement, however, I’ve noticed that few if any critics of CRT have associated the theory with Jewish ethnic activism.

Though the theory has long been employed in university settings, more recently it has turned up in government and corporate offices, and even the military has been pushing it since the inauguration of Joe Biden as President. For me, it’s long been a given that CRT is linked to the social engineering of our “hostile elite,” which in the context of The Occidental Observer means powerful Jews and Jewish organizations who rule over America and much of The West. When viewed more broadly, however, the topic of CRT has in fact been much addressed by our writers but often under a consideration of something called “Whiteness Studies.” In that sense, I’m merely adding the term “Critical Race Theory” to an ongoing conversation about Jewish ethnic war on Whites.

For me, CRT fits squarely into the mold of Kevin MacDonald’s “Culture of Critique” category in which Jewish “gurus” concoct a Talmudic verbal assault whose main goal is the further destruction of Gentiles  —  literally. I know because I had a ringside seat to the introduction of CRT in the graduate schools of the 1990s, with one of the most vicious practitioners of the “art” as one of my required professors. It was a brutal experience, but at least I was forced to reckon with it from then on and have since probed more and more deeply into its Jewish roots. In that sense, I’ve gained from the trauma I experienced and emerged out the other end able to share with my audience the lessons I’ve learned.

To tell this story, let’s begin with a now obscure Australian writer named Robert Hughes (1938 – 2012), who was once described as “the most famous art critic in the world.” In 1993, he’d gotten so fed up with identity politics that he penned the book Culture of Complaint: The Fraying of America (Oxford University Press). In this book, he rightly skewered the growth of the Grievance Industry, giving example after example of how black groups or women’s groups or whatever loudly attacked the White Majority for all manner of sins. I recall how his book attracted attention from many of the print journals of the time, with many taking the Australian author’s side, so bad had this “culture of complaint” become.

What frustrated me, however, was the fact that Hughes completely neglected to address the “meta-complaint” in the West from which all lesser complaints emerged. To wit, Hughes failed to see how The Holocaust Narrative had been so successful in advancing Jewish interests that naturally other groups eagerly imitated this successful model.

Of course in 1993 the Complaint Industry was just hitting its stride and I soon endured the “graduate education” described above, with mere complaint being elevated to something far more pernicious and menacing. In any case, the direction of complaint was always the same: Against the White race.

I eventually staggered out of higher education, badly bruised and emotionally scarred, but with terminal degree in hand. Sturdier souls might have crowed that “Whatever doesn’t kill me only makes me stronger,” but I’ve been too battered since to engage in such braggadocio. Instead I try to keep my head down and stoically soldier on. Jews are playing for keeps in this battle.

Fast forward a few years when I was diligently working on a major composition about Jewish power in America and a professor of history with a Harvard Ph.D. twice encouraged me to “give the work of Kevin MacDonald a fair hearing.” I did and the experience has been life changing. His trilogy, culminating in The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, appeared to me at just the right time; I was ready to truly hear what the master had to say.

Of course I immediately recognized the similarity of main titles between Hughes’ “Culture of Complaint” and MacDonald’s “Culture of Critique,” but fortunately the latter’s laser-like focus on Jews made MacDonald’s book far more important than Hughes’. Verily, if Whites ever come out of the ethnic battle described by MacDonald, The Culture of Critique will be among the top books in the new Western pantheon. Future generations of Whites will know the name “Kevin MacDonald” as household words, as well they should.

Here, I am assuming our audience knows the gist of Culture of Critique, as well as the later Cultural Insurrections, so I’m going to now jump to the founding of MacDonald’s Occidental Observer, the online blog which emerged from The Occidental Quarterly, our side’s academic journal. Early on, in 2008, MacDonald published a blog called “Promoting genocide of Whites? Noel Ignatiev and the Culture of Western Suicide” in which he parsed the wordplay used by the late Jewish professor from Harvard to reveal its genocidal intentions toward Whites. Ignatiev was the founder of the journal Race Traitor, the motto of which is “Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity,” a phrase which immediate recalls Jewess Susan Sontag’s infamous lines “The truth is that Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Marx, Balanchine ballets, et al., don’t redeem what this particular civilisation has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history …”

Situating Ignatiev’s clever use of words in the category of Jewish ideologies deconstructed in Culture of Critique, MacDonald wrote,

Our interpretation is that Ignatiev’s views are nothing more than ethnic competition. As a leftist Jew, he is part of a long tradition that has opposed white interests and identity — the culture of critique that has become the culture of Western suicide. And like so many  strongly identified Jews, his hatred for the people and culture of the West comes shining through.

Further falling back on categories included in Culture of Critique, MacDonald concluded that

Ignatiev is just another Jewish intellectual in a long line that stretches back to Franz Boas, the Frankfurt School, and myriad others who now dominate the culture of Western suicide. He may call himself a race traitor, but there is every reason to believe that he has a sense of allegiance to his own people and the long history of hostility to the people and culture of the West that is so typical of highly committed Jews. For him, being a race traitor comes easily and naturally; it’s the mother’s milk of socialization as a Jew.

As fate would have it, the Jewish professor who so tormented me and other Whites in grad school had many similarities to Ignatiev, beginning with appearance:

And what MacDonald wrote about Ignatiev — “People like Ignatiev, who doubtless have a strong sense of their own ethnic identity and interests, have managed to pathologize any sense of ethnic identity and interests among Europeans and European-derived peoples — and no one else”  — was true in spades of my graduate school oppressor. What we were exposed to in the 90s is identical to what various critics of Critical Race Theory are describing now — the struggle sessions, the mandatory lectures on “White privilege,” and the complete lack of debate or discussion. I had to watch as our esteemed professor subjected White individuals to withering criticism in class, first reducing a young woman to tears, then much to my disgust, a fellow White male grad student. It was awful.

While MacDonald did not use the phrase “Critical Race Theory” to label Ignatiev’s assault, he was in fact describing the same thing. Best, MacDonald saw through Ignatiev’s sophism to expose the real intent, something which others on TOO have done since, as we shall soon see. Before addressing that, however, I’d like to add an aside whose timing is too good to ignore. As I was about to embark on my dissertation after having completing coursework and exams, another Jewish professor gave me a book he had received gratis in the chance that he might review it. The professor opted not to and gave me the fresh copy:

Written in 1997 by law professor Stephen M. Feldman, the book was titled Please Don’t Wish Me a Merry Christmas: A Critical History of the Separation of Church and State (NYU Press). The subtitle containing “Critical History” points to the fact that the sponsor of the book was the Critical America Series from NYU Press, whose myriad titles revealed by the link can be enjoyed at readers’ leisure. Oh, I should mention that the very first words of the Introduction are: “I am Jewish.” Thus began another “culture of critique” attack on Western man and his major holiday.

Andrew Joyce on “Whiteness Studies”

The Occidental Observer was extremely fortunate to attract the considerable writing skills of Andrew Joyce, beginning with his Limerick “pogrom”: Creating Jewish victimhood, posted on St. Patrick’s Day in 2012. By 2015, however, he had written what can be seen as an extension of MacDonald’s 2008 unpacking of Ignatiev’s brutal intellectual campaign. In “Jews, Communists and Genocidal Hate in ‘Whiteness Studies,’” Joyce drew on MacDonald to show that “Ignatiev only very thinly disguised the unrestrained hatred that his ‘discipline’ incites against Whites and their culture.” Further quoting MacDonald, Joyce noted that

Ignatiev et al. have developed a story that goes as follows: A bunch of very bad people got together and created a category called “white” to which they belong but people with different colored skin can’t belong. Then they made laws that favored people in the white category, they colluded with other whites to dominate the economic and political process, and they invented baseless scientific theories in which whiteness had its roots in real biological differences.

All Ignatiev’s written material that we’ve seen carries the same odd message with the same extreme wording…Ignatiev writes darkly and dramatically of “abolishing the white race,” “genocide of whites,” etc. When pressed, he emphasizes that that he doesn’t really mean killing people who call themselves white. He only wants to destroy the concept of whiteness. So he’s off the hook, right?

Joyce comments:

Not quite. Ignatiev is really just playing a game of bait and switch. While fully tuned-in to his own Jewish racial identity, he ostensibly follows the PC line that “races” are only “social constructs.” When pressed, he claims to be little more than an extreme egalitarian, against all social hierarchies but especially those in which he imagines Whites to be at the top.

Like MacDonald, Joyce easily sees through Ignatiev’s gambit, writing that “The party line, therefore, is that it’s all about getting White people to stop thinking that they are White – for their own good of course. So while Black studies, women’s studies, Chicano studies etc. all aim to develop and nurture their relative identities and social agendas, ‘Whiteness Studies’ aims to utterly extinguish any sense of identity and awareness of group interests,” a very important distinction indeed.

Much of what Joyce wrote was very familiar to me by 2015. For instance, the wife of Frankfurt School member Herbert Marcuse “devoted much of her time to pushing her ideology through her ‘Unlearning Racism’ workshops, and indoctrinating White teenagers into supporting multiculturalism through her Oakland-based ‘New Bridges’ group.” Another Jewish woman, Ruth Frankenberg, wrote in 1993 that the dogma of her Whiteness discipline

orbits around the belief that race is nothing more than a fluid social, political and historical construct. She argued that while Whites may deny that they are ‘racist,’ they cannot deny that they are White. Frankenberg proceeded to argue that Whites are implicitly racist by virtue of their ‘dominant’ position in western society, and contended that we should ‘critically reflect’ on this social position of dominance that White people occupy in our society. ‘Whiteness Studies’ to Frankenberg, like her predecessors, was therefore nothing more than an exercise in convincing Whites that they are oppressors, whether they wished to be or not, and whether they had actually personally taken part in any oppression or not.

Been there, heard that back in the 90s. I’m sorry now that the broader public is hearing and being submitted to the same thing in the Biden Era.

Joyce had other good things to say. For instance, he found a section from Savitri Devi’s The Lightning and the Sun to be useful in exposing the deceit employed in Jewish aggression:

Inconspicuous, slow, yet implacable persecution, both economic and cultural: the systematic suppression of all possibilities for the vanquished, without it ‘showing,’ the merciless ‘conditioning’ of children, all the more horrible that it is more impersonal, more indirect, more outwardly ‘gentle,’ the clever diffusion of soul-killing lies; violence under the cover of non-violence.

“Violence under the cover of non-violence” — although it could certainly morph into violence if Whites lose power to the rising tide of color, and indeed, we can already see the rise in anti-White violence in the interracial crime statistics and incidents like these, as compiled by AmRen. It was tactics like these that caused me so much distress as an isolated and powerless grad student years ago. Back then I knew of no Kevin MacDonald or Andrew Joyce who could guide me through those roiled waters. While I could recognize my professor’s method as a deliberate form of social engineering, I couldn’t yet figure out how it was done, so I was demoralized because, as E. Michael Jones said in the epigraph which begins this essay, “To be effective, social engineering cannot be perceived,” and I could not fully perceive what these words meant, even as I felt their sting and saw their near universal effectiveness, just as I fear their effectiveness now.

Since grad school, my goal has been to understand this social engineering and explain it to others, which I have attempted relentlessly, in the classroom and in these columns. I now find comfort in the company of men like Andrew Joyce, who concluded in this White Studies piece,

The ‘educational’ programs of the ADL, the obliteration of our national borders, the assassination of our racial identity, and the slow genocide of our people are being accomplished without the bullet, bomb or blades. But it is, and will be, tremendously violent in its implications. Whiteness studies are not part of an academic discipline in any true sense of that term. The genre is an act of inter-ethnic aggression.

Joyce revisited Jewish involvement in Whiteness Studies (again, a close cognate, in my view, of Critical Race Theory) in 2020 with “Review of Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility,” a book that “is heavily and transparently influenced by Jewish thought and by Jewish pioneers in the field she now finds so conducive to fame and fortune.”

Sure enough, Joyce found concrete evidence of this in the bibliography — “so many names from my research on Whiteness Studies. They were almost all there, protruding from the page like shunned relatives at a family reunion — Noel Ignatiev, George Lipsitz, Ruth Frankenberg, Michelle Fine, Lois Weis, along with helpful co-ethnics like Thomas Shapiro, David Wellman, Sander Gilman, Larry Adelman, and Jay Kaufman. These are DiAngelo’s mentors and intellectual forbears …” We are definitely seeing a pattern here.

Critical Race Theory in the News Today

I originally began this essay with a story about Lt. Colonel Matthew Lohmeier, who was fired for publicizing his views on the introduction of CRT into the military. Admittedly, it was asking for trouble to publish a book titled Irresistible Revolution: Marxism’s Goal of Conquest & the Unmaking of the American Military in today’s current climate, but he did. In an online Revolver article concerning the controversy, we find that “Lohmeier appeared on several podcasts to promote his book, and in response the Pentagon fired him. According to the DoD, his statements caused a ‘loss of trust and confidence in his ability to lead.’”

The article continued, “As far as Revolver and tens of millions of American patriots are concerned, Lohmeier’s actions represent the very pinnacle of courage and leadership,” an opinion I’ll second. Still, based on this interview, it seems Lohmeier could benefit from exposure to MacDonald’s Culture of Critique or my short discussion of White Studies above. When a term like “Marxist Race Theory” is used by an author, is it knowingly used as shorthand for “Jewish”? My impression given this interview and my brief exposure to Revolver’s approach is “No.” And that’s a problem. Consider Lohmeier’s words:

I am often asked, “how did this happen?” or, “when did this happen?” How is it, for example, that American people and institutions — predominantly our education system, and now, all federal agencies including even our military services — increasingly resonate and align with Marxist thought? How is it that Americans can now so easily question or forget the greatness of the American ideal and become victims to the tactics of subversion? Why haven’t we been able to recognize our slide into Marxism? There are two ways this has happened: gradually, then suddenly. …

Obviously, if he’s read The Culture of Critique, he knows “how this happened.” Given his relatively young age, if he’s followed the podcasts of The Daily Shoah or read more than a few dozen Andrew Anglin stories on The Daily Stormer, then he knows how this happened. My suspicion, however, is that he has no idea, so someone should forward him this article.

Anyone following American academia for the last three decades will know of the intense leftist slant gaining power with each passing year, and students of politics, the legal system and corporate affairs will be similarly aware. It only makes sense that it was slower to reach the military and that there was some pushback, summed up by Lohmeier with the statement, “There is a growing perception that the preponderance of political partisanship occurring in our armed forces is radical leftist partisanship.” Well, yes it is.

Next, does Lohmeier view the introduction of CRT into the military as being generically harmful, or does he see it as specifically anti-White? Based on the interview, it’s likely that he sees the anti-White import of official programs in today’s military, writing as he does that in one chapter he is critical of an essayist who sees her role in a project “as an attempt to ‘decenter whiteness.’” Sounds like we’re getting back to the White Studies aspect of CRT.

But is it even necessary to ask whether CRT can be evaluated as generically undemocratic or even racist rather than being specifically anti-White? Apparently it is, as a VDARE writer styling himself as “Washington Watcher II” has done in a blog called “Fight Against Critical Race Theory — But They Still Flinch From Calling It Anti-White Racism.” Note the subtitle claiming “They Still Flinch from Calling it Anti-White Racism.” Kind of hard to believe. But Washington Watcher found a CRT critic who “essentially argued that race doesn’t exist, a favorite of Conservatism, Inc. And along with many other cuckservatives, he promotes the cringe idea that CRT is bad because it harms non-whites.” Yes, it really is hard to believe. Our thanks to Washington Watcher for making this distinction clear, especially in his conclusion when he beseeches us to “Repeat after me: CRT isn’t just racism; it’s anti-white racism.”

Conclusion

We’ve reached the point where some are stepping forward to point out the obvious truth that CRT is in fact “anti-White racism.” Much to my surprise, however, I’ve seen little or no evidence that people have pointed to the far more instructive issue that while it is of course anti-White racism, it has been propagated by a long string of Jews for over fifty years. This is because Jews are prosecuting a deadly war on Whites, with previous examples such as the Bolshevik era in Russia, the Holodomor, and the various “cold” strategies documented in The Culture of Critique such as boosting non-white immigration and depressing White family formation. This is the point I am at pains to emphasize.

The consequences of this are immense, beginning with MacDonald’s claim in his 2008 TOO article that after demonizing Whites (or “Whiteness”), “it doesn’t take much imagination to suppose that actual genocide of Whites is the next step.” I couldn’t agree more and have stressed this point for over twelve years here on TOO.

I’ll close with a succinct version of all I’ve written about above, one that uses plain language to cut through sometimes lengthy analyses. On June 10, 2021 Andrew Anglin published a piece called Psychoanalytic Journal Publishes Paper Calling “Whiteness” a “Malignant, Parasitic-Like Condition” which is a sort of companion piece to Aruna Khilanani’s fulminations as discussed by MacDonald in “Expressions of Anti-White Hatred in High Places: Aruna Khilanani at Yale” published two days earlier. MacDonald states that “Jews have been a necessary condition for creating multicultural America” and that “It’s no surprise that Khilanani is a textbook example of the influence of the Frankfurt School’s Critical Theory, the forerunner of Critical Race Theory.”

Clearly, Anglin knows the work of Noel Ignatiev and his theories of Whiteness Studies, and immediately recognizes their import to the confessions of the non-white female psychiatrist:

This whole thing of claiming that “whiteness” is somehow different than “being a white person” is just a ruse. No one thinks that makes sense, including the people saying it. They are talking simply about white people.

They want to wipe out white people.

Recently, we saw the Indian psychologist – psychologist again! – Aruna Khilanani saying that she just wants to kill random white people. She didn’t say kill random “people infected with whiteness” – she just said white people.

Talking about “whiteness” as some kind of abstraction is a way for these people to really start pumping up the genocidal mania under a thin veil of semantics.

This puts me in mind of the predictions of Tomislav Sunic in his 2007 book  Homo Americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age, where he argued that “in order for the proper functioning of future Americanized society, the removal of millions of surplus citizens must become a social and possibly also an ecological necessity.” MacDonald in those years of writing about “Stalin’s Willing Executioners” (i.e. Jews) identified what sectors might be targeted “and therefore worthy of mass murder by the American counterparts of the Jewish elite in the Soviet Union.” Further,

It is easy to imagine which sectors of American society would have been deemed overly backward and religious and therefore worthy of mass murder by the American counterparts of the Jewish elite in the Soviet Union — the ones who journeyed to Ellis Island instead of Moscow. The descendants of these overly backward and religious people now loom large among the “red state” voters who have been so important in recent national elections. Jewish animosity toward the Christian culture that is so deeply ingrained in much of America is legendary. As Joel Kotkin points out, “for generations, [American] Jews have viewed religious conservatives with a combination of fear and disdain.” And as Elliott Abrams notes, the American Jewish community “clings to what is at bottom a dark vision of America, as a land permeated with anti-Semitism and always on the verge of anti-Semitic outbursts.” These attitudes are well captured in Steven Steinlight’s charge that the Americans who approved the immigration restriction legislation of the 1920s — the vast majority of the population — were a “thoughtless mob” and that the legislation itself was “evil, xenophobic, anti-Semitic,” “vilely discriminatory,” a “vast moral failure,” a “monstrous policy.” In the end, the dark view of traditional Slavs and their culture that facilitated the participation of so many Eastern European shtetl Jews in becoming willing executioners in the name of international socialism is not very different from the views of contemporary American Jews about a majority of their fellow countrymen.

In his June 10, 2021 entry Anglin issued a similar warning, one I feel is a fitting close to this essay:

We are right on the verge of a large-scale culling.

We’ve talked about “white genocide” in terms of mass immigration and using feminism to restrict our breeding — but this cold genocide is about to get hot.

People should be aware.

There are warning signs all over.

There is a bloodbath coming.

What to Expect When You’re Expecting the End of the World (as We Know It)

We are, without question, on the cusp of a Brave New World, turned upside-down by the forces unleased on the back of the COVID-19 pandemic. Whether the virus was intentionally released or the powers that be simply did not want a good crisis to go to waste is at this juncture irrelevant; what is of the utmost importance is that the virus has proven to be the justification for accelerating the pieces of a program that has been building quietly in the shadows—though not altogether hiding—for some time.

Many readers will likely be familiar with the “table-top exercise” Event 201 held in October 2019 just before the global pandemic of COVID-19; the participants in this exercise, conducted by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, “agree[d] that it is only a matter of time before one of these epidemics becomes global—a pandemic with potentially catastrophic consequences. A severe pandemic, which becomes ‘Event 201,’ would require reliable cooperation among several industries, national governments, and key international institutions”—all of the major actors, in fact, behind selling us the “solutions” that so neatly dovetail with “existential crises” like climate change and “digital pandemics.” For instance, the World Economic Forum’s Cyber Polygon 2021 will simulate a cyberattack with participants responding to “a targeted supply chain attack on a corporate ecosystem in real time.” Note the use of linkage here with words like ecosystem, and the fact that the WEF notes, “A cyber attack with COVID-like characteristics would spread faster and farther than any biological virus. Its reproductive rate would be around 10 times greater than what we’ve experienced with the coronavirus.” It is, of course, merely kooky “conspiracy theory” to note that dry runs have been happening with alarming regularity already over the past several months, because none of this is at all scripted. Right. The shortages, droughts, and “existential crises” are in no way manufactured.

You should probably ignore the fact that meat is being phased-out because of cow farts in the pursuit of “net zero carbon emissions” while JBS Foods, the world’s largest meatpacking company, not only partnered with the World Economic Forum in April 2021 to tackle “climate change” and acquired Vivera, Europe’s third-largest “plant-based food” company, that same month, but was suddenly and mysteriously assailed by ransomware the following month. How about fossil fuels and the Colonial Pipeline attack? The Pimpri-Chinchwad Smart City project in India? “IoT manufacturer” Sierra Wireless? Global wholesale distributor JBI? What about World Economic Forum partner Royal Dutch Shell, whose Emily Tan wrote for the WEF in February 2021 that Never has there been a moment where businesses, energy consumers and governments—from Canada to China—are aligning on a common vision like this: a road to net-zero emissions”?

World Economic Forum founder and Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab—a leading figure for the implementation of the “Internet of Things,” the Fourth Industrial Revolution, and the Great Reset—states that, “The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world. … One of the most striking and exciting transformations caused by the pandemic has been our transition to the digital ‘everything’”—a “digital everything” already envisioned by Schwab in his books like The Fourth Industrial Revolution from 2016 and advanced in COVID-19: The Great Reset from 2020. Connecting these biological and digital spheres is the aim of 2021’s Cyber Polygon, with the idea that “a secure approach to digital development today will determine the future of humanity for decades to come.” Interestingly, given the sheer volume of screeching about RUSSIA! for the past half-decade/seventy years, 2020’s Cyber Polygon featured a slew of institutions housed in Russia and the former USSR alongside Deutsche Bank’s Technology Centre (housed in Russia), IBM, and Banco Santander, among others.

This is not to suggest that Russia is, in fact, colluding to destroy the West with the complicity of its feckless “elites,” but rather that behind the scenes of this global stage production, distinctions such as “Russian” or “American” are irrelevant—there is one conglomeration of technophiles at war with humanity at large, although this conglomeration itself does often bifurcate along the lines of whether they are, to borrow from Yuval Noah Harari’s book Homo Deus (originally published in 2015 in Hebrew in Israel as The History of Tomorrow), “techno-humanists” or a part of the “data religion.” For Harari, a techno-humanist

still sees humans as the apex of creation and clings to many traditional humanist values. Techno-humanism agrees that Homo sapiens as we know it has run its historical course and will no longer be relevant in the future, but concludes that we should therefore use technology in order to create Homo deus…with the help of genetic engineering, nanotechnology and brain-computer interfaces.[1]

These brain-computer interfaces include projects such as Neuralink, co-founded by Elon Musk among others and housed in the same building as another of Musk’s ventures in OpenAI, a possible ideological competitor in the data religion space. For Harari, the data religion, “argues that humans have completed their cosmic task and should now pass the torch on to entirely new kinds of entities.” Though quite possibly phased out of existence by their creation(s), they view themselves as Creators and thus gods.

According to the publication Wired, the genesis of OpenAI began with a meeting between former Stripe employee Greg Brockman and Sephardic “deep learning” pioneer Yoshua Bengio; initial financial backing came from Musk, Peter Thiel (who is absolutely central in the man-becomes-demigod set), and Jewish investor and artificial intelligence enthusiast Sam Altman, whose other investments include the Soylent drink mixture, which is thankfully not people (yet?), but mostly soy. OpenAI’s Chief Scientist is Open University of Israel attendee and Google Brain alum Ilya Sutskever. In 2019, Microsoft invested $1 billion in OpenAI LP.

World Economic Forum partner Microsoft was co-founded by Bill Gates, who is now the top private owner of farmland in the United States with landholdings owned via Cascade Investment, with other investments including the plant-based food company Beyond Meat. For Gates, “Cows and other grass-eating species have a digestive system that emits methane. And methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas. And so cows alone account for about 6% of global emissions and we need to change cows. Just cows alone. Of all the categories, the one that is gone better than I would have expected five years ago is this work to make artificial meat and so you have people like IMpossible or Beyond Meat both of which I invested in.” Gates is also a confidant of Anthony Fauci and a major fixture in the effort to re-make the planet and, quite possibly, humanity; for more on his Gates Foundation’s central role in the growing medical tyranny, readers are directed to my Amazon-banned book The Transgender-Industrial Complex: our would-be overlords don’t like when you tell the truth, and yes, all of these various strands are all connected, as the book illustrates—indeed, differentiating between state- and non-state actors, is, as I will provide another illustrative example of, a false dichotomy. And note that they are all interconnected and at a very high level of influence.

Consider the UK’s AI Council, “an independent expert committee, [which] provides advice to Government and high-level leadership of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) ecosystem.” It is Chaired by Tabitha Goldstaub, UK AI Business Champion and co-founder of CogX, and features members such as Mark Walport (Formerly UKRI and Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser), Chris Bishop (Microsoft Research Lab), Ann Cairns (MasterCard), Rachel Dunscombe (NHS Digital Academy—you might recall that the NHS has been a target of ransomware attacks in recent years; the NHS is a major customer of Darktrace), and Lila Ibrahim (DeepMind). Among the Council’s roles is to “Increas[e] skills in AI, including the diversity of people studying and working in AI” because diversity is always our greatest strength, even when we’re engineering the superintelligences of the future that may well enslave and/or exterminate us.

Another member of the AI Council is Nick Jennings, a member of the Advisory Board of Darktrace, “Founded in 2013 by mathematicians and cyber experts from government intelligence backgrounds, Darktrace was the first company to apply AI to the challenge of cyber security. With its Immune System platform, Darktrace has fundamentally transformed the ability of organizations to defend their most critical assets in the face of rising cyber-threat.” Alongside Jennings on the Darktrace Advisory Council are (with descriptions from the Darktrace website):

  • Lord Evans was Director General of MI5 from 2007 to 2013. He spent 33 years with MI5, defending the UK against internal and domestic terrorism and cyber-threats. He was appointed to the Security Service’s Management Board as Director of International Counter Terrorism in 2001, ten days before the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center. He was appointed to the House of Lords in 2014 at the personal recommendation of the Prime Minister and sits as a cross-bench peer. Lord Evans is also a non-executive Director of HSBC Holdings and of Ark Datacentres Ltd.
  • Alan Wade had a thirty-five-year career in the Central Intelligence Agency, where he latterly served as the Chief Information Officer, before his retirement in 2005. Prior to this role, Alan held a series of senior positions at the CIA, including the Director of Communications and Director of Security.[2]
  • After a career in banking, venture capital and head hunting, Amber Rudd became the MP for Hastings and Rye from 2010 to 2019. She held three cabinet roles over four years and under three Prime Ministers, first in Energy and Climate Change, then the Home Office as Home Secretary and until September 2019 in Work and Pensions. She also twice served as Minister for Women and Equalities. As Energy Secretary she steered the UK’s participation in the crucial and successful Paris Climate Change Agreement in 2015. As Home Secretary she oversaw the UK’s response to the terrorist attacks in 2017. Under her leadership the UK led on setting up an international industry-led response to removing radicalising material on the internet which endures as the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT). She is now a Senior Advisor to Teneo, Management Consultants. She is also an Advisor to Pool Re, insurers for terrorism risk. She recently became a Trustee for The Climate Group, working with the private sector to reach a net zero outcome.

According to his Imperial College London biography, Jennings

is the Vice-Provost for Research and Enterprise and Professor of Artificial Intelligence at Imperial College London. He is an internationally-recognised authority in the areas of AI, autonomous systems, cyber-security and agent-based computing. He is a member of the UK government’s AI Council, the governing body of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, the Monaco Digital Advisory Council,[3] and chair of the Royal Academy of Engineering’s Policy Committee. Before Imperial, Nick was the UK’s first Regius Professor of Computer Science (a post bestowed by the monarch to recognise exceptionally high quality research) and the UK Government’s first Chief Scientific Advisor for National Security. … Nick’s personal research focuses on developing AI systems for large-scale, open and dynamic environments. In particular, he is interested in how to endow individual autonomous agents with the ability to act and interact in flexible ways and with effectively engineering systems that contain both humans and software agents. … He is a Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, the British Computer Society, the Institution of Engineering and Technology, the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), the Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and Simulation of Behaviour (AISB), the Royal Society of the Arts, the City and Guilds of London Institute, the German AI Institute (DFKI) and the European Artificial Intelligence Association and a member of Academia Europaea… He is also involved with a number of start-ups including Aerogility, Crossword Cybersecurity, Contact Engine, Darktrace, Rebellion Defence and Reliance Cyber Systems.

Without going too far into the weeds, suffice it to say that the relevant organizations overlap in personnel and collaboration, and span the university network as well as the military-industrial and medical-industrial complexes, logistics and transportation sectors, and everything in between.

Illustrative is Aerogility, whose major clients include Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce, EasyJet, Boeing, and Cranfield University. Alongside Jennings, co-Chief Scientific Advisor Michael Luck is Professor of Computer Science and Director of the UKRI Centre for Doctoral Training on Safe and Trusted Artificial Intelligence. Luck is also an AI Advisory Board member with Jennings at Contact Engine, which partners with companies such as Oracle, DHL, Microsoft, and Amdocs. The reader may recognize the name Amdocs as the Israeli-founded company that as early as 1999 was alleged as having a key role in the records of US government telephone calls ending up in Israeli hands. As Christopher Ketcham wrote in 2008:

Since the late 1990s, federal agents have reported systemic communications security breaches at the Department of Justice, FBI, DEA, the State Department, and the White House. Several of the alleged breaches, these agents say, can be traced to two hi-tech communications companies, Verint Inc. (formerly Comverse Infosys), and Amdocs Ltd., that respectively provide major wiretap and phone billing/record-keeping software contracts for the U.S. government. Together, Verint and Amdocs form part of the backbone of the government’s domestic intelligence surveillance technology. Both companies are based in Israel – having arisen to prominence from that country’s cornering of the information technology market – and are heavily funded by the Israeli government, with connections to the Israeli military and Israeli intelligence (both companies have a long history of board memberships dominated by current and former Israeli military and intelligence officers). Verint is considered the world leader in “electronic interception” and hence an ideal private sector candidate for wiretap outsourcing. Amdocs is the world’s largest billing service for telecommunications, with some $2.8 billion in revenues in 2007, offices worldwide, and clients that include the top 25 phone companies in the United States that together handle 90 percent of all call traffic among U.S. residents. The companies’ operations, sources suggest, have been infiltrated by freelance spies exploiting encrypted trapdoors in Verint/Amdocs technology and gathering data on Americans for transfer to Israeli intelligence and other willing customers (particularly organized crime)… “Trojan horse espionage is part of the way of life of companies in Israel. It’s a culture of spying.”…Amdocs’ biggest customers in the U.S. are AT&T and Verizon, which have collaborated widely with the Bush Administration’s warrantless wiretapping programs.[4]

Amdocs has also gotten into the 5G game and is part of the global arms race to produce “end-to-end digital enabling infrastructure” across the globe from Missouri to Ireland to Liberia.

Clearly privacy is rapidly becoming a thing of the past as the power players seek to “hack” and control humanity (whatever the justification—national security, a global pandemic, or “investing in forests”), but what’s this obsession with 5G? Well, according to Tom Taulli, writing for Forbes in May 2020:

When it comes to the 5G roll-out, AI will definitely be supercharged. “AI is a huge priority,” said John Smee, who is the VP of engineering and head of 5G R&D for Qualcomm. “We are seeing a transformation happening, with AI going from the cloud to being distributed, such as on the edge or IoT devices.” In preparation for this, Qualcomm has been embedding AI capabilities on its chips. Note that its AI engine has applications for cameras, battery life, security and gaming—allowing for neural network processing. “5G will cause a proliferation in sensors all around us, and each one of those sensors is a new input available to create better models,” said Jake Moskowitz, who is the Head of the Emodo Institute at Ericsson Emodo. “Many of these 5G sensors will directly enable vast data aggregation for remote monitoring and immediate reaction. In some cases, there will be opportunities to use those sensors as AI inputs. In other cases, there will be new AI efforts that require the distribution of new sensors.”

These sensors can help form the bed-rock of the new “smart cities” that will be re-configured to accommodate the Hive Humanity of the near future; as Ida Auken wrote for the World Economic Forum in 2016, re-published in Forbes as “Welcome to 2030: I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy and Life Has Never Been Better,” envisioning a world where “AI and robots took over so much of our work”: “Once in a while I get annoyed about the fact that I have no real privacy. Nowhere I can go and not be registered. I know that, somewhere, everything I do, think and dream of is recorded. I just hope that nobody will use it against me.”

This is presented as somehow a good thing, but this Panopticon is anything but idyllic to my mind. Indeed, what Auken—a Danish Parliamentarian, the Former Minister for the Environment in Denmark (2011–2014), and a Young Global Leader for the World Economic Forum—describes as the lifestyle of “those we lost along the way” sounds just fine, actually, and should likely form the bedrock of practical resistance to this project:

My biggest concern is all the people who do not live in our city. Those we lost on the way. Those who decided that it became too much, all this technology. Those who felt obsolete and useless when robots and AI took over big parts of our jobs. Those who got upset with the political system and turned against it. They live different kind of lives outside of the city. Some have formed little self-supplying communities. Others just stayed in the empty and abandoned houses in small 19th-century villages.

The trouble is that the technophiles and utopians have no desire to just let what Tom Kawczynski describes as “organic humanity” live unmolested. In Auken’s description, we see a glimpse of a future of bifurcated humanity, echoing Harari, where a new “superhuman caste” ruthlessly exploits “regular” people. Going further, I see no reason why these “superhumans,” devoid as they are of tolerance for difference of opinions and disgusted as they are by fellow but “deplorable” humans at the moment, would allow for the continued existence of an “inferior” class, especially when they have automated everything around them.

Past this potential scenario, there are a number of possibilities where AI decides to rid the planet of humanity altogether—whether it has achieved sentience or not is irrelevant. Even should these scenarios not come to fruition, there are still the present issues of the dumbing-down and reduction of human agency via both technology and social engineering projects, constant surveillance, and persecution of dissidents and disfavored groups, all while not just the gray matter of humanity, but its very genetic code is subject to constant hacks and forced medical interventions/experiments in the form of mRNA “vaccines.”

You know that “end-to-end digital enabling infrastructure”? Well, that will also encompass blockchain that will be tied to biometric data and social credit scores (thanks Chicoms!) in the new “smart,” cashless, and “open” society where everywhere is nowhere. In this void of meaninglessness, the new data religion and the techno-humanist religion have supplanted what, for Harari and his ilk, are the quaint fictions of Scripture. Without any proof beyond that “science” hasn’t discovered the existence of souls, the modern Sadducee/Sophist Harari states that instead humanity is turning its gaze to what may well spell the death of liberalism in the form of the quest for immortality, happiness, and divinity. If the middle item on humanity’s “new agenda” looks a lot like Brave New World, well, sometimes life imitates art. That or Aldous Huxley, whose brother Julian was a eugenicist, knew a thing or two about where this project was headed nearly a century ago.

Julian Huxley—the first Director-General of UNESCO, President of the British Eugenics Society, President of the British Humanist Association, and a founding member of the World Wildlife Fund—is commonly credited as the founder of transhumanism. Readers of The Transgender-Industrial Complex will note that the World Wildlife Fund is, despite its seeming innocuousness, deeply enmeshed in the globalist agenda. Of course, UNESCO is as well: the Moroccan-Jewish Audrey Azoulay, Director-General of UNESCO, states in “Towards an Ethics of Artificial Intelligence” in the UN Chronicle that developments in AI are relevant to every aspect of UNESCO’s mandate, and that “AI could open up tremendous opportunities for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set by the United Nations in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” It is not coincidental that with partners like Amazon, Facebook, Google, Huawei, Unilever, Salesforce, UNICEF, the UNDP, the Overseas Development Institute (ODI), the Government of Botswana, and Microsoft as partners, the World Economic Forum announced its 2030Vision project:

A newly formed integration merging the 2030Vision Partnership Initiative launched by Arm in December 2017 with the Frontier 2030 initiative launched by the World Economic Forum in January 2020. The new initiative, 2030Vision is co-owned and developed with founding partners and co-chaired by Simon Segars, CEO, Arm and Achim Steiner, Administrator, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2030Vision aims to be the global public-private platform that puts the expertise and resources of the tech sector in service of accelerating the achievement of the Global Goals. The platform mobilizes technology companies, government, civil society and international organisation leaders to harness emerging technologies and at scale to accelerate action to achieve the Global Goals within the next decade. The platform seeks to form 4IR [Fourth Industrial Revolution] technology partnerships.

The World Economic Forum in 2016 was already fantasizing about the convergence of genome editing and artificial intelligence with other emerging technologies in its “Life in 2030: Humankind and the Machine.” As Harari explicates, intersecting with secular humanism and liberalism, for the techno-humanists:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not say that humans have ‘the right to life until the age of ninety’. It says that every human has a right to life, period. … An increasing minority of scientists and thinkers consequently…state that the flagship enterprise of modern science is to defeat death and grant humans eternal youth.[5]

In reality, this quest for the Fountain of Youth is a devil’s bargain humans have tried to make as long as our collective memories stretch—and probably much further. We see here the threads that could quite possibly come unraveled, however, as scientific humanism gives way to scientism, or the data religion, with systems, algorithms, and quantum computers as the golems of these would-be gods. But they cannot truly create, for only the Most High can do that. Instead, people like Elon Musk—despite his dire warnings about artificial intelligence, possessing the hubris to think that somehow we can control intelligences vastly more, well, intelligent than us—and others such as Bill Maris (The Climate Corporation, acquired by Monsanto; Google Ventures and Calico) and Peter Thiel drive us ever-forward toward what might well spell our doom. I cannot emphasize this enough: this project is the existential threat we face, not some manufactured nonsense like “climate change.”

Scott Howard is the author of the Amazon-banned book The Transgender-Industrial Complex, reviewed for TOO by John Q Publius.


[1] Harari, Yuval Noah, Homo Deus, 2017. HarperCollins. p. 357.

[2] Through connections that go well beyond this piece, Wade is a key figure in connecting a number of dots in a web including various Israeli firms, British and American “intelligence,” Facebook, and Peter Thiel/Palantir, among others; a good piece is linked here. Darktrace in particular is highlighted here.

[3] The Council celebrates the fact that, “The Council’s recommendations include an emphasis on the importance of formulating a detailed action plan, building a strong brand (now Extended Monaco) and developing a Monegasque smart city, based on the Internet of Things as well as a 100% digital administration. Connecting people, vehicles and infrastructure, promoting soft mobility, developing a platform using Blockchain technology…The first pivotal moment was in summer 2019, when the Principality became the first country in the world to roll out 5G across its entire territory, in partnership with Huawei. This roll-out represents an important driver of growth for many sectors of the economy (the smart city, media, transport, e-health) and a font of opportunities, including the use of smart drones by firefighters, the development of self-driving vehicles, telemedicine, and so on. Like 4G before it, 5G will open up a new range of possibilities that are as yet difficult to qualify and quantify.”

[4] Ketcham, Christopher, “An Israeli Trojan Horse,” September 27, 2008. CounterPunch.

[5] Harari, Yuval Noah, Homo Deus, 2017. HarperCollins. p. 24.

The Merchants of Venice Beach

By now, almost everyone but the cardio-hemophilic liberal is aware that California is crashing and burning. Businesses are closing, families leaving and tourists abstaining. A sanctuary state for some and a failed state for others—the net population loss certainly suggests more of the latter. Now for the first time, crime and destitution are on the doorstep of previously untouchable parts of the Californian riviera, which would at least deliver some poetic justice for the liberal elite.

Fox News and CBS report that Venice Beach is the latest casualty of the state’s Third-Worldization, thanks to a permanent tent-city of homeless people bringing a different sort of vibe to the surfing Shangri-la. Open drug use, nudity and public defecation aren’t included in any of the reality TV productions still filmed in the area, though the Mail Online assures us that these are part of the daily motion.

At last count, a record 41,290 people were homeless in the city of Los Angeles. The bureau tasked with tabulating this figure cited the “legacy of systemic racism” as a key reason why homelessness is getting worse, and even has a special “Committee on Black People Experiencing Homelessness.” Their report, however, did not explain why Asians and Hispanics were significantly underrepresented among homeless persons, while (putatively privileged) Whites were not.

The tent-city at Venice Beach is but a splinter colony of the long-established Skid Row of downtown LA, itself now bleeding onto freeway ramp areas and Long Beach. Dan Fleming of the Economic Roundtable forecasts that the problem is going to get even worse: as much as 86% more homelessness over the next four years. It’s a dire outlook, but, not to worry, in just seven years’ time Los Angeles will host the Summer Olympics to immense counterpropaganda fanfare. Venice Beach has been assigned to host the ancient Hellenic disciplines of skateboarding and 3×3 basketball. At least Venice’s public nudity won’t be out of place.

City council and the government of California have already thrown billions of dollars at the homelessness problem, and now Governor Newsom is plunging another $12 billion down the golden drain of liberal bureaucracy. Much of the funneled money goes to administrative soft costs like consultants and contractors that make up the homeless-industrial complex. But fiscal carpet-bombing is all that’s left to do when the underlying causes of a malaise are politically incorrect. America’s failing schools, the huge spike in urban crime, and crumbling inner cities have been honored with the same tribute for decades.

Some observers consider the homelessness crisis to be a function of the substance abuse and mental health crises. While this may be partly true, such proximate antecedents obscure the cultural and moral rot coming from upstream.

The non-profit organization Invisible People offers some fascinating insight into the caliber of people currently homeless. What may surprise many is the number of homeless people who previously led completely normal lives. Well-spoken, sober and emotionally stable—some have tertiary degrees, others used to be bankers and even millionaires. There are those who work full-time and still can’t afford housing. In many cases, the catalyst for their descent into homelessness leavened with financial volatility not exactly of their own doing: market crashes, exorbitant medical costs, or their financial institution went bankrupt overnight. Then, add to the mix the slow grind of unscrupulous economic policy that has been squeezing the working class: massive job losses due to outsourcing, unbridled inflation and the dearth of affordable housing.

To make matters worse, a good chunk of the homeless are being evicted by way of legal technicalities and lawfare, which swoop on the vulnerable at the right moment rather than restructuring and reforming salvageable agreements with the customers from whom they profited for years. American enterprise may have developed out of the Western libertarian tradition, but the country was also once a high-trust society from the top down. Far too many Whites appear hopelessly naïve to the Svengalis of their modern surrounds, perhaps because they evolved for a society where if you worked hard and stayed in your lane, you would be looked after by the community. Socioeconomic justice anchored in common sense and fairness has been assailed by a kind of Talmudic economism in which the Shylocks will come for their pound of flesh and more if they have legal recourse to do it.

The situation in the social sphere is almost concentric with that of the economic. Individual culpability remains a staple of the Western social contract on the one hand, but on the other hand, elites and social engineers conspire to tip the scales in favor of more social and moral decay. Drug addiction is the biggest gateway to homelessness and yet its recent passage through the culture has been to first destigmatize, then medicalize, then legalize, and now glorify through Hollywood. Party drugs for the youth and painkillers for the proletariat, mendaciously legalized through the conniving exploits like those of the Sacklers. Meanwhile, California’s attempt to empty overcrowded prisons through criminal reform is another boost for drug culture. Ever since theft up to $950 in value was decriminalized through Proposition 47, the incentive for junkies to get clean has effectively gone, as they can now feed their habit with the five-finger discount.

Children as young as nine have been found living on the streets, and while drug-addicted parents are often the cause of abuse and neglect at home, one should not omit the proliferation of illegitimacy, non-biological parenting, and radicalized adolescents. One would think that the validity of these forces would be clear from the number of children who flee foster homes, and yet the response from the liberal academic-media complex is to keep pushing euphemistic ploys like rainbow families and Modern Family. A well-kept secret among felons is that they can avoid registering as a sex offender if they are technically homeless.

In less than a century, America has gone from Fitter Family contests to the Kardashian-Jenner clan taking center stage. Sexual intimacy has never been lower and yet STDs are skyrocketing. There is no politically correct spin that can stabilize historical norms so badly off their axis. And yet the chaos and confusion spiral on into fresh terrain.

Racial dysphoria is the trendy new psychosis that California is a hotbed for. While the state is famous for its White flight problem there is also what Steve Sailer terms “flight from white.” In this case, the majority of the White student body in an ultra-liberal San Francisco Bay Area school unexplainedly disappeared in 2019 and subsequently reappeared/reidentified as being “two or more races.” In a just world, White liberals wouldn’t be allowed to seek asylum in red states, as this is as principled as fleeing the scene of a crime, but it’s only slightly more odious than attempting flight from White though internalized blackface or POC-face. Now more than ever White Americans are politically polarized, and when you interlace social and moral affiliation, they’re basically bipolarized.

This brings us to the next category of Shylocks whose services endow America with net loss and harm: the political class. In California, politicians are an entrenched breed of tenured and sinecured lackeys in service of the Democrat plutocracy. The problem is that those who aren’t consciously corrupt still have far-advanced ideological cataracts that distort their view of the world. California’s politicians cannot even keep their premier sponsors and clients happy: Oracle, HP and Tesla have left for Texas. Meanwhile Venice Beach could not even hold on to its Ben & Jerry’s—just desserts some might say for the social justice-flavored ice cream company.

The government of Venice currently comprises “model-American” Ted Lieu, Autumn Burke, Mike Bonin and Ben Allen—the four seasons of diversity that ensures at least Asians, Blacks, gays and Jews have someone that looks like them in parliament. One resident of Venice Beach notably not represented by this team of rainbow all-stars is 1980s film star Paul Hogan. The Australian-born actor recently told media that Venice Beach is “an unlivable zoo,” which is an interesting choice of words for someone made famous by Crocodile Dundee.

In the nearby ritzy suburb of Venice Canals, another famous tenant has reason to be needled by the encroaching tent-city. None other than the President’s son Hunter Biden has his quarters there for $17,500-a-month rent. As a self-professed hard drug user, Hunter could probably relate quite well to the folks down on skid row, if it wasn’t for his strenuous job as a Ukraine hydrocarbons expert.

Wheeling and dealing is of course the Biden and Sons family trade, but few could have known that foul-mouthed stepmom Jill Biden is higher qualified still. In 2007, Jill was granted a mickey-mouse doctorate from a community college in Delaware. All in all, there doesn’t appear to be a single decent member in the Biden household—and that includes the family dog recently removed from the White House because of a biting problem.

The Bidens’ other pet is of course Kamala Harris—politically adopted as though there was a melanin quota to fill, because it certainly wasn’t for her charisma or record as a public official. In terms of popularity and visibility, Harris trails Biden like a Muslim wife. And yet it’s ironic that it’s Harris who now breathes down Biden’s neck for the top job. Biden may not have the legs to complete his term—he certainly doesn’t for an airplane staircase. His lizard-brain can’t help blurting out awkward inner monologue. He is 78 after all, and to be fair, having an establishment mouthpiece who often speaks with no filter has its advantages. And calling him Sleepy Joe kind of lost its bite once Kamala Harris joined the ticket, the very person most notorious for having slept her way to the top.

Harris’ underdog story never quite resonated with the public. She is, after all, descendent of academics and slave owners, grew up as a pampered minority, and matured into a sly careerist and overpromoted doge. This multi-racial, multi-millionaire child of Californication has made virtually every life decision a maneuver of self-aggrandizement—and that includes her marriage at age 49 to prominent Californian-Jewish lawyer Douglas Emhoff.

Jews on the west coast naturally have their own inimitable history of semi-integration at the civil level, while being politically alien and quite ahead of the cultural curve downward. Jews did not come to enrich surfing culture in Huntington Beach or grow citrus in Orange County. They came for Hollywood and Sacramento, with New York values in their breast pocket. Among California’s Jewish politicians, one can recall such exemplary cultural pioneers as Dianne Feinstein, Harvey Milk and Roberta Achtenberg.

Just as California was America’s cultural bellwether for the better part of the modern era, so shall its current plight be the omen of the republic’s festive unraveling. California has been the gold tooth in America’s smile for years. And America is only smiling because it’s high on its own supply—from monetary policy to state ideology. Biden may yet be the perfect mascot for these mortal throes; a cognitively declining president leading a populace suffering cognitive dissonance. His electoral victory, much like his campaign, was made in a Hollywood basement—and yet he’s still the political dinosaur that America deserves to have. Perhaps he’ll be America’s last before the meteorite.